GasBuddy News Article

50

votes

The quiet underside of going green

Delaware Online
--
Homeowners on the hunt for sparkling solar panels are lured by ads filled with images of pristine landscapes and bright sunshine, and words about the technology’s benefits for the environment – and the wallet.

What customers may not know is that there’s a dirtier side.

While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers nevertheless are grappling with a hazardous waste problem. Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water.

To dispose of the material, the companies must transport it by truck or rail far from their own plants to waste facilities hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of miles away.

The quiet underside of going green, solar panels maybe 'green' but the underside has its problems. Producing solar panels requires exotic elements, heavy metals and strong greenhouse gases that are much stronger than CO2 or methane will ever be. Properly taking care of waste materials are necessary to ensure non polluted land and a cleaner environment. Do the right thing!Fracking and oil spills as a result of production and are in the same area......I remember many articles that said there were different manufacturing techniques that did not use 'dirty' materials and produced solar panels without all the 'bad' stuff.Drive vehicles with high MPG, are very safe, reliable, have a ‘reasonable’ cost and a good ‘value’ for the money.The price of fuel at the pump is too high!

one must also remember that almost all goods purchased in the US (not including food or fuel) is manufactured in China. The environmental conditions there are much worse and the US buyers fuel the environmental contamination w/ the demand for cheaper and cheaper products.

The key thing to remember here is that there are those that will defend solar in the most hypocritical of ways.

As the article points out, "Fueled partly by billions in government incentives, the industry is creating millions of solar panels each year and, in the process, millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water."

And, "The waste from manufacturing has raised concerns within the industry, which fears that the problem, if left unchecked, could undermine solar’s green image at a time when companies are facing stiff competition from each other and from low-cost panel manufacturers from China and elsewhere."

You see, the solar manufacturing industry itself fears this dirty side getting any mainstream news coverage.

"New companies often send hazardous waste out of their plants because they have not yet invested in on-site treatment equipment, which allows them to recycle some waste."

Why not? Greed perhaps? Or just not caring about containment and proper disposal because making a profit creating these toxic chemical soups?

"Several solar energy experts said they have not calculated the industry’s total waste and were surprised at what the records showed.

Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011."

Yes, but we must overlook these facts and be good little green fanatics.

"Life cycle analysts add up all the global warming pollution that goes into making a certain product – from the mining needed for components to the exhaust from diesel trucks used to transport waste and materials. Not factoring the hazardous waste transport into solar’s carbon footprint is an obvious oversight, analysts said.

Mulvaney noted that shipping, for example, 6.2 million pounds of waste by heavy-duty tractor-trailer from Fremont, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay area, to a site 1,800 miles away could add 5 percent to a particular product’s carbon footprint."

Interesting in that we keep hearing that solar is "free" energy. Looks like according to the global warming alarmists it's not so free. But we already know that nothing is free.

And finally, "The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a watchdog group created in 1982 in response to severe environmental problems associated with the valley’s electronics industry, is now trying to keep the solar industry from making similar mistakes through a voluntary waste reporting “scorecard.”

So far, only 14 of 114 companies contacted have replied."

Why the secrecy? What do they fear from transparency? What are they really hiding?

These are the questions and what really is to be taken from this article.

Sorry to tarnish the image of your hero. Not even a mention of FNC. Now maybe ABC news is in the same category as FNC to you. If FNC is so bad or wrong why doesn't some other network document this? If you don't want to know what is really going on your doing a good job.

Facts...hmmm....we know that Solyndra received Federal loads and special consideration for investors to recover their money back after members of Solyndra's management arranged bundling campaing funds for obama. FACT.

Why in the world would anyone ship hazardous waste from California to Rhode Island? Or to Minnesota or Arkansas for that matter. Factories in CA should deal properly with their waste materials nearby. At least most plants are dealing with them, not polluting air and water.

"The roughly 20-year life of a solar panel makes it some of the cleanest energy technology available. Energy derived from natural gas and coal-fired power plants, for example, creates more than 10 times more hazardous waste than the same energy created by a solar panel, according to Mulvaney.

The U.S. solar industry said it is reporting its waste, and sending it to approved storage facilities – thus keeping it out of the nation’s air and water. A coal-fired power plant, in contrast, sends mercury, cadmium and other toxins directly into the air, which pollutes water and land around the facility."

Unfortunately, it was on the last page of the four-page article. I don't know how many people read that far.